MQ usability

[Peter Williams]

On 24/08/09 01:51, Patrick Mézard wrote:
> Peter Williams a écrit :
>>> Could you elaborate on how you use qsave exactly?
>>> Are you talking about rebasing patches with the complicated
>>> qsave/qpush -m dance?
>>
>> I also suggested that a special version of rebase (e.g. qrebase) could
>> be used to replace qsave (which would also make qrestore unnecessary).
>> Its interface could be considerably simpler than rebase's because less
>> things would need to be specified.
>
> What do you have in mind?

My main thought was that the source options (i.e. --source/--base) would 
not need to be specified for qrebase as you already know what has to be 
moved.

>
> I you rebase your queue systematically (I am not promoting this, but
 > otherwise you already do enough revision manipulations that finding the
 > target head has a marginal cost) instead of qpop/qpushing, the only 
argument
 > to pass is usually the target head revision. Perhaps, we could add 
even more
 > smarts and have an argument to rebase onto the "tipmost" revision on 
current branch,
 > excluding revisions being rebased, but that would go in rebase extension.

Yes, default destinations (similar to those for 'update') would be good 
(and I must admit that I assumed that they were already in place).

I think that qrebase could be just a thin wrapper around rebase that 
automatically supplies the source options but for it to be properly 
integrated into MQ rather than just an alias in the configuration file(s).

As I understand it there's a mechanism whereby an extension can declare 
a dependence on another extension and that it will be loaded if the 
dependent extension is loaded?  So mq could declare a dependence on 
rebase and then implement qrebase on top of rebase.  How does that 
sound?  I can work on a patch if you like?

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058 at bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce